Search This Blog

Larry Probst: Shattering the Glass Ceiling Edition

While the world is focused on our presidential slates poised to shatter glass ceilings over race or gender, Larry Probst just crashed through the one cantilevered over video game executives. It's not as historic as Jackie Robinson, or Dick Parsons, but it is a major leap for our industry. I wrote about mainstream perceptions of our industry in a post about similarities between porn and games in a post heavily edited and improved by N'Gai Croal. I left out the part about executives. Until yesterday's announcement of Larry Probst's new position as Chairman of the Board of the United States Olympic Committee, game executives were mentioned in the same breadth as "real executives." Yesterday, Larry Probst's announcement treated him as the veteran executive he is.

"There wasn't any debate at the board meeting," Ueberroth said of the unanimous vote that ended in Probst getting a four-year term.

The 58-year-old Probst will be involved in the bid, but also was tabbed because of his business acumen. He has worked at Electronic Arts, a company that includes EA Sports, since 1984. Annual revenues at the company grew from $175 million to $3 billion over the 16 years during which he served as CEO. Last year, he retired that post and became chairman of the board."The EA Sports brand is one of the most recognized brands in the video games industry," Probst said. "I've been doing that for 15-plus years. As a consequence of that, I've had a lot of exposure to commissioners, leaders in sports."

This is great news for everyone on the business side of the business. In the real world, executives move among companies all the time. Games are a black hole. The CEO of a video game publisher has fewer career options than the junior manager of Tampax marketing at Proctor and Gamble. When executive searches are conducted, "real companies" look for the P&G guy or the Unilever woman. Clorox, Pepsi, Coke, all good. Games, don't even think about it. Each inter company move leads to a promotion and a raise. The door to the world of executive opportunity has traditionally been closed to game executives. Let's hope the guy who oversaw the growth and retention of the lion's share of the video game business kicks some ass on the USOC and teaches the world what we have to offer.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Every once in a while you come across an act of Hypocrisy so egregious, you have to laugh. I read an article on game politics about a mutual fund called The Timothy Plan, which call itself a family of mutual funds offering individuals a biblical choice when it comes to investing. If you are concerned with the moral issues (abortion, pörnography, anti-family entertainment, non-married lifestyles, alcohol, tobacco and gambling) that are destroying children and families you have come to the right place.

The Timothy Plan® avoids investing in companies that are involved in practices contrary to Judeo-Christian principles. Our goal is to recapture traditional American values. We are America's first pro-life, pro-family, biblically-based mutual fund group.. The fund issued a press release indicating it would not invest Take Two Interactive because "it is releasing another video game that contains extreme sexual and violent content." Curiously, the release did not mention the …

Yes, I am still ranting about critics. The tension between creators and critics is as old as narrative itself. I'm confident Plato's critics were late comers to the process. But as we enter the season for release of highly anticipated, high production value, very expensive games the critics seem to be in a bad mood - or, the industry is releasing a string of the worst games in history. I don't think it's the latter because the games seem to be selling very well. Brothers in Arms is getting an equal number of scores 50s and 60s to its 90s. Fracture and Mercenaries 2 are faring even less well and I already talked about The Force Unleashed. The first reaction is to grab the critics by the lapels and scream "Have you ever tried to make a game?" I guess it's a common refrain across all creative media. Even though it would feel really good, let's take a look at the issue. There seems be a growing divide between what the critics are looking for…

After realizing my call for the destruction of Gamestop was for naught, I had to come to terms with the need to accept their business model as a fact of life - even though they are killing the geese who so lovingly innovate, fund, develop and so lovingly deliver golden eggs into their grubby, cold, clammy, unappreciative hands. I even moderated a panel with Gamestop's CEO, and kept my opinion to myself . . . mostly. But do I really have to accept their repeated efforts to persuade us their actions are good for the business. Does the crack dealer stand on the corner and say he is enhancing the junkie's lives, or does he just take their money? Gamestop senior executives do understand that if they have to keep repeating that their actions are good for the industry, they are probably not good and constant repetition will not make it so.

In a recent interview in Edge, Mike Mauler, EVP of Gamestop International said:

Keith Boesky has been involved in the game business for a very long time. His tenure includes, attorney, president of a publisher, agent and general advisor. His company, Boesky & Company is responsible for selling more intellectual property and developers into the game business than any other company in the world. His wife, Sari, provides endless support which makes her very tired, and often times his son thinks he is pretty cool.